So, I finally decided to send the infamous FSM some mail; here it is:
Excellent satire of the criticisms of religion and Intelligent Design … unless you guys actually think the creation of the FSM and its subsequent religion is a valid critique of religion and Intelligent Design in the form of satire or actual truth for that matter. In that case, try studying and understanding your “opponents” first before attacking. Or maybe this “religion” of the FSM is just a good case of showing that people will believe almost anything (assuming that your church members ACTUALLY believe the FSM to be true). Yet, I very highly doubt that people are QUITE that stupid. Given enough time, they should be eliminated by natural selection anyway.
However, both ways I do enjoy and appreciate the artistic work and creativity you have put into the FSM and its subsequent church. It, as well as the hate mail you receive, is truly hilarious.
It’s a good thing that artistic method isn’t restrained by the scientific method. The religion of the FSM is evidence that art is not restrained by logic.
As an aside, since art is allowed to be taught in school in the form of an art class, the religion of the FSM should be allowed in school as well. Drop me a line if you need help creating a case (I wish I were a lawyer).
Similarly, religion or philosophy would also be considered art if it did not attempt to validly explain the existence of good and evil, reason, and other enigmas of the “human condition.” Art attempts to depict; religion, science, and philosophy attempt to explain in a valid manner.
Nevertheless, I can see how the religion of the FSM could attempt to explore the very concept of validity and its relation to truth. However, in this case, it should also attempt to be more valid itself and satirically examine or disprove science as well in order to be more encompassing and relative in addressing validity, in my humble opinion.
Or the creation of FSM and its religion may be just a load of quasi-artistic BS, in accordance with all gods written in history who were included within and were a part of the universe and describable as natural objects. re: ra (sun-god), poseidon (god of the sea), fsm (flying chunk of spaghetti and meatballs) “may his appendages be honored”
Regardless of the psychology or validity behind the FSM, thank you for the humor, and good luck in continuing to intelligently or not so intelligently (whichever the case may be) evolve the FSM and its religion.
May your God given or unguided evolutionary given ability for creativity and the FSM’s noodly appendage guide you in your never ending search for that natural-selection-created concept of Truth.
I leave with you these three quotes:
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
–C. S. Lewis
“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”
–C. S. Lewis
“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
–Albert Einstein
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Here is a short reply to this letter and my further reply as posted on the FSMs "Hate Mail" section.
Captain Noodulous Silicate TBHNA Dec 17th, 2006 at 3:29 am
"The initial point appears to be:
If CoFSM is a parody of satirical religions then it is funny.
If it is an attempt to parody religion itself OR intended as actual fact, then it isn’t funny.
I haven’t been through the middle bit in detail, but I think the author likes some of the artwork.
The quotations appear to demonstrate an established fact: C.S.Lewis was a bell-end.
There’s also one from Einstein which doesn’t seem relevant, but here’s an alternative:
The most comprehensible thing about the “excelent satire … unless” e-mail is that it is incomprehensible.
- Oscar Wilde"
My apologies for being "incomprehensible." If my post was incomprehensible then it is only because I, myself, am a little confused as to the point of the FSM, which is why I tried to examine it from a variety of possibly conflicting angles.
If there is something that is not understood specifically, ask and you shall receive to the best of my ability.
...as well...
Captain Noodulous Silicate TBHNA Dec 17th, 2006 at 4:45 am:
"I like the last bit of the C.S. Lewis quote:
It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset
Modern forensic method is based on the principle that a great deal can be determined from split milk about how that milk got spilt."
Being the "quasi-intellectual x-ian" that I am, I was sincerely hoping that I wouldn't have to explain this C.S. Lewis quote.
The point is that if everything that exists is the direct result of only natural laws, then teleological and reasoning processes are also the result of natural laws. Teleology would be a subset within the set of natural laws and would therefore adopt its rules from natural laws. However, if this is truly the case, then it follows that natural laws which are not purposeful can create purposeful processes and thus discover and explain themselves, since it seems that the ability to discover and explain natural laws is the effect of teleology and reasoning. C.S. Lewis did not believe this to be a rational account and neither do I. Seriously now, can someone scientifically prove that purpose and the ability to discover purpose and act purposefully arises from accident? It seems to be almost self-defeating.
This differs from forensics where an intelligence is examining the "shape taken when you upset a milk jug" to determine whatever he can from it, as opposed to the accidental spill itself being able to determine its origins. Can accidents themselves determine their own origins? This is one of the valid questions that C.S. Lewis was attempting to ask.
Furthermore, if all you are going on is the accidental shape of the "accidentally" spilled milk, can you truly find motive behind why the milk was "accidentally" spilled in the first place or even determine if the jug was indeed accidentally spilled as opposed to purposefully spilled? In other words, can you truly determine the results as non-purposeful by merely judging the end shape of the spilled milk? Relating this to our reality, if all you are going on is the accidental natural laws of the "accidentally" created universe, can you as the "accidentally formed shape of spilled milk" truly find motive or lack of motive behind why the universe and the concept and ability to be purposeful "accidentally" began to exist?
BTW: what do you make of the first C.S. Lewis quote?
P.S. name calling -- ie: bell-end -- gets us nowhere and I see it as quite immature, especially when you are not understanding someones argument or even attempting to address a legitimate concern (ie: purpose arising accidentally) proposed within that person's quote.
I hope that I have been able to comprehensively explain myself.
Thank you all for your concerned criticisms, and yes, it is true that I do appreciate the time and art that has been put into the FSM as Art.
Furthermore, one of my main points is contained within my last para:
"May your God given or unguided evolutionary given ability for creativity and the FSM’s noodly appendage guide you in your never ending search for that natural-selection-created concept of Truth."
If the concept of truth is only that which has been created by accidental natural laws and natural selection why does it matter for any purpose other than reproductive success and survival? Surely the concept of truth can't be TRUE, since it itself is an accidental shape of "spilled milk" (in keeping with the allegory). The reason I don't see the concept of truth as the result of natural laws is because that would seem to be self-defeating. The concept of Truth as played out by elecro-chemical interactions within our brains would then be subjective to whichever natural laws (random mutations and natural selection for the "purpose" of survival and reproductive success) created it, and would thus loose its definition as being the mark of objective reality.
Post a Comment